In light of Supreme Court's decision on DOMA, where do we go from here in the battle for marriage?

Here's an excellent summary by Ryan Anderson of what happened with the Supreme Court and it's 5 to 4 decision striking down the federal DOMA provision.  He also provides good points for moving ahead.

The Court's decision was clearly a power play and as Scalia wrote the majority will try to get away with whatever it can.

To defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements …. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. … All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence — indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

Anderson then comments: 

Scalia writes that he does not mean “to suggest disagreement with the Chief Justice’s view” about the confines of Kennedy’s opinion. But Scalia tells us to be clear-eyed: “I promise you this: The only thing that will ‘confine’ the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.”

The battle certainly needs to be waged in legislative bodies and the courts but just as importantly in the broader culture.  To date, the redefinition folks have had the run of the field in the media and entertainment worlds.

I have a suspicion that will start to change.

The assault on marriage is now starting in states.

With the Supreme Court's decision ruling part of DOMA unconstitutional, many expect that decision will be used to attack marriage laws and amendments in states.  It looks like it's already starting in Michigan.

Michigan's voter-approved gay marriage ban will face a trial after a federal judge declined a motion by the state to dismiss a lawsuit that challenges the prohibition. Citing last week's Supreme Court decision that effectively gives federal marriage benefits to same-sex marriages in states where they're already legal, the judge declared that the "plaintiffs are entitled to their day in court and they shall have it.” It looks like this is one of what will likely be many court challenges to state gay marriage bans in the wake of the SCOTUS decisions. 

Roe v Wade of marriage

Back from vacation last week and ready to comment on what happened on the recent Supreme Court decisions on marriage.  It looks like the Supreme Court issued a Roe v. Wade type decision on marriage.  At least that's what some commentators are saying.  Here's one by professor Hadley Arkes who references Scalia's dissent.

These decisions, handed down by the Court today, affect to be limited in their reach, but they are even worse than they appear, and they cannot be cabined. They lay down the predicates for litigation that will clearly unfold now, and with short steps sure to come, virtually all of the barriers to same-sex marriage in this country can be swept away. Even constitutional amendments, passed by so many of the states, can be overridden now. The engine put in place to power this drive is supplied by Justice Kennedy’s “hate speech,” offering itself as the opinion of the Court in U.S. v. Windsor. Kennedy wrote for the Court in striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the part of the act that recognized as “marriage,” in federal law, only the union of a man and woman. 

In Kennedy’s translation, the Defense of Marriage Act showed its animus in its very title: The defense of marriage was simply another way of disparaging and “denigrating” gays and lesbians, and denying dignity to their “relationships.” As Justice Scalia noted so tellingly in his dissent, Kennedy could characterize then as bigots the 85 senators who voted for the Act, along with the president (Clinton) who signed it. Every plausible account of marriage as a relation of a man and woman can then be swept away, as so much cover for malice and blind hatred.

 As Scalia suggested, that opinion can now become the predicate for challenges to the laws on marriage in all of the States. A couple of the same sex need merely go into a federal court and invoke Justice Kennedy’s opinion in the DOMA case (U.S. v. Windsor): The Supreme Court has declared now that a law that refuses to recognize same-sex marriage is animated by a passion to demean and denigrate. Any such law cannot find a rational ground of justification. As Kennedy had famously said in Romer v. Evans, those kinds of laws can be explained only in terms of an irrational “animus.”

In summary, the decision is another power grab by our liberal elites in the judiciary and expands the cultural wars on the marriage front.  And it opens the door to further attacks on religious liberties - one of the chief reasons for our break with Britain during the Revolutionary War period.  In my estimation the left will not be satisfied until they stifle all dissent.  They'll use the use of tax codes and anti-discrimination lawsuits with the threat of fines and more to achieve their goal of silencing dissent from leftist/liberal orthodoxy.

Bill Clinton, DOMA and Cynicism

Here's an insightful take on Bill Clinton and his now opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which he signed into law while president.  DOMA simply said marriage for purposes of federal law is one man and one woman and a state can't be forced to recognize a same sex union if they don't want to.  Now he says DOMA is discriminatory and unconstitutional. As Paul Mirengoff asks, then why did Clinton sign it into law.

In a Washington Post op-ed, Bill Clinton argues that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which he signed into law, is unconstitutional. This raises an obvious question: Why did Clinton sign an unconstitutional piece of legislation into law?

As slick as he is, Clinton can’t provide an answer. He does explain why he signed DOMA in 1996:

[At that time] in no state in the union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.” It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.

Clinton appears to be saying that he signed DOMA to head-off a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But that’s no excuse for signing unconstitutional legislation. After all, Clinton took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Unfortunately, oaths have never had much meaning for Clinton.

Clinton also says “I know now that the law is discriminatory.” But he also must know that not all “discriminatory” laws are unconstitutional.

Moreover, DOMA’s potential for “discrimination” was apparent when Clinton signed it. At that time, as he acknowledges, some states were moving towards legalizing same-sex marriage. DOMA meant that same-sex couples who married in these states would not have certain federal benefits available to other married couples. Yet Clinton signed DOMA into law.

I wonder what Bill Clinton hoped to accomplish through an op-ed in which he admits to another act of cynicism and lawlessness. Does he think that one or more of the five Supreme Court Justices who may be inclined to uphold DOMA will be moved by this op-ed to switch on the issue?

I doubt it. More likely, the judge Clinton has in mind is History. That arbiter already has him pegged as lawless cynic anyway. So why not try to explain away his endorsement of DOMA, and get on what he assumes eventually will be the prevailing side by hopping abroad the gay marriage express before it arrives at the station?

This reminds me of a cartoon of Clinton, probably when he was president, showing a band marching down one fork in a road while Clinton, formerly ahead of the band, goes down the other fork.  He turns around and sees they're going in another direction.  So he runs across country to get in front of the band.  

House Defense of DOMA - Trust but Verify

More information on Speaker Boehner's statements about intervening to defend DOMA, because of President Obama's dereliction of duty, suggests that a House defense of DOMA may not be a sure thing. This from a TPM post this morning:

"I'd be very surprised if the House didn't decide that they were going to defend the law," Boehner said. Surprisingly, he suggested that the move was likely beneficial to Democrats in the next election.

"It strikes me as something that's just as raw politics as anything I've seen knowing that a lot of people who believe in DOMA are probably not likely to vote for him and pandering to the other side on this issue," he said.

As President Reagan used to say, "Trust but verify."

You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if...

The only thing that stands in the way of the legalization of homosexual marriage are pastors who are faithful to God’s design for marriage and family. In Minnesota there are thousands of pastors who have remained faithful but many others have been taken captive by secular dogma.

You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…

You believe it’s “hateful” to disagree with a persons’ sexual behavior.
You believe you can’t love someone if you disagree with a persons’ sexual behavior.
You believe that homosexual sex is healthy.
You believe that scientific studies confirm that homosexual sex is healthy.

You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…

You believe “civil rights” trumps God’s design for marriage.
You believe God’s design for marriage should not influence our marriage laws.
You believe that God’s design for marriage is nothing more than a list of “benefits and legal rights.”
You believe that the definition of marriage is a secret plot to elect republicans.

You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…

You believe that God’s design for children to have a mother and a father is strictly a religious belief.
You believe that a child’s need for a mother and a father is not scientific.
You believe “two loving people in a committed relationship” are the same as a mother and a father.

You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…

You believe that God’s design for marriage is “intolerant” or “homophobic.”
You believe “all you need is love.”
You believe that God’s design for marriage is not scientific.
You believe that God’s design for man, woman and marriage is strictly a religious belief.
You believe God’s design for man and woman is not scientific.
You believe that legalizing homosexual marriage will improve God’s design for marriage.

You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…

You are afraid to speak the truth.

Is homosexual marriage coming to Minnesota? If Senator John Marty gets his way, it will.

In a commentary posted on www.MinnPost.com Senator John Marty from Roseville calls for legalizing homosexual marriage in Minnesota.

In an article entitled, "It's time to move forward with gay-marriage legislation", Senator Marty says:

Last session, along with several of my colleagues, I introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriages in Minnesota. Now we are asking for a hearing on the legislation in the Senate Judiciary Committee during the 2009 legislative session.

Minnesota's law prohibits gays and lesbians from marrying the person they love. Our legislation would repeal that prohibition and extend equal marriage rights to all people regardless of sexual orientation.

This effort is made with no illusion about the difficulty of passing the legislation. In the November election, several states passed voter initiatives banning same-sex marriages. California's initiative actually took away the existing right for gay couples to marry.

His comments contain the usual homosexual marriage canards about homosexuals not having "equal marriage rights." Homosexuals can already marry it just must be to a person of the opposite sex; they're seeking to redefine the institution.

And then he emphasizes the emotional side, having homosexual couples "briefly tell their story. Have them talk about their love, the challenges they face as parents, the problems they encounter because they are not allowed to marry. Opponents would have equal time to voice their concerns. "

Yet then he turns around and seems to be suggesting the exact opposite: "the Judiciary Committee could break past the heated rhetoric on the issue with a candid discussion, conducted in a civil tone. Discussions help to inform and educate people. With all of the divisiveness over gay marriage, a civil discussion might bring people closer together."

I've thought the tone of past committee hearings was rather civil given the strong emotion surrounding the issue.

He says that opponents are just worried that homosexual marriage "will hurt their own marriages, I'd like to ask them to tell us how. I'd really like to know whether they feel my marriage — Connie and I just celebrated our 28th anniversary — would hurt their marriage too."

I personally have never been concerned about nor have I argued that homosexual marriage would affect my marriage. What it does do is redefine the institution of marriage, as it has existed from time immemorial, out of existence. It would no longer exist. One effect is it would now mean that children, legally speaking, would no longer be understand to need both a mother and a father. One or the other would be superfluous in a homosexual marriage. This situation has already been devastating to society and would only worsen by sanctioning same sex marriage.

Senator Marty goes on to say that as a Christian his faith leads him to promote homosexual marriage.

If opponents say they believe gay marriage is sinful or morally wrong, I'd like to tell them why I, as a Christian, believe we should not just allow, but actually encourage gay couples to marry. It is because of my faith, not in spite of it, that I think we should promote marriage and work to strengthen families of gay couples as well as heterosexual couples.

To say the Christian faith supports same sex marriage is ludicrous.

The Scriptures are unambiguous about homosexual behavior being morally wrong and sinful and the nature of marriage being between a man and a woman. The testimony of Christians and the Christian church throughout history only affirms this view of homosexual behavior and marriage. The view by a few that homosexual marriage is not inconsistent with Christian teaching is simply heretical.

Next Senator Marty tries the usual secular argument that pro-traditional marriage supporters are simply trying to impose their religious views on the rest of society.

I would like to ask my colleagues who oppose this legislation why they consider it acceptable for Minnesota's government to endorse their religious beliefs about gay marriage and enforce them over the religious beliefs that thousands of other Minnesotans have. Every member of the Senate took an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and each of us understands that government should treat all people in a fair, non-discriminatory manner.

There's a degree of hypocrisy in Senator Marty's comments. He has just argued his view of Christianity promotes same sex marriage and via his bill he wants to impose his position on society.

The fact is traditional marriage isn't being artificially imposed on society. It was reaffirmed through the passage of the 1996 state DOMA bill through both bodies of the legislature and signed into law by then Governor Arne Carlson.

Marty seeks to provide reassurance that churches won't be required to perform same sex marriages. Their religious liberties will be protected. And he draws the fallacious analogy of same sex marriage to inter-racial marriage.

Opponents worry that their churches would be required to perform gay marriages. But we can reassure them that the freedom of religion that would allow gay marriages is the same freedom of religion that allows them to perform marriages only for couples they choose to marry. We could point to the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down laws prohibiting interracial marriage – a decision that was strongly opposed by many Christians at the time — and remind them that the churches objecting to those marriages have never been forced to solemnize them.

First, homosexual marriage advocates often argue that opposing homosexual marriage is tantamount to opposing inter-racial marriage. If they truly believe that then it's very reasonable to assume that if homosexual marriage is the law of the land then churches which oppose homosexual marriage will be stripped of their nonprofit tax status and be subject to anti-discrimination laws. In the 1980s, Bob Jones University which at that time didn't allow interracial dating was stripped of their tax status. (They recently apologized for their policy.) These actions would certainly be infringements on religious liberties.

It would mean the indoctrination of all public school children into the notion that marriage no longer a man and a woman and to think otherwise is wrong and bigoted. It would undermine parental rights and religious liberties as we already see happening in other state's which sanction homosexual marriage or, I should say, were forced by their courts to sanction it.

Second, homosexual marriage and inter-racial marriage bans are analogous only in that they are both anti-marriage -- homosexual marriage by negating the presence of a man or woman in the relationship and interracial marriage bans by seeking to keep particular men and women from marrying because of their skin color. This is of course the exact opposite of what pro-homosexual marriage advocates would like you to believe or understand about inter-racial marriage bans which were truly anti-marriage.

Senator Marty says, "A Senate hearing that confronts these issues with a civil discussion will not end all opposition to gay marriage, but it will help break down the misunderstandings that exist."

I'm all for a civil discussion to give all the facts out on the table. I more this issue is debated and discussed the better.

He concludes by saying,

I'm confident that most Minnesotans, even those uncomfortable talking about homosexuality, will recognize the fundamental fairness of allowing every adult to choose his or her own marriage partner.

Here Senator Marty, I'm sure unintentionally, points out where this effort to redefine marriage will eventually lead. To allow "every adult to choose his or her own marriage partner." Why limit it to unrelated folks? Why not family members? Siblings? Father and daughter? Mother and son? And of course, why one person? Weren't polygamous relationships sanctioned in cultures throughout history and even in some societies today. If all these folks love each other, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry one another?

This shows the chaos of the position advocated by homosexual marriage advocates like Senator Marty.